TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

-GoldenHandTheJust- Archive

View 0 posts and 197 comments by -GoldenHandTheJust- on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

the gap is essentially women with children who can’t afford third party childcare etc, and so they have to substitute their own time over work.
/r/MensRights02/10/24 02:07 PM
1

what country is this?
/r/MensRights01/10/24 06:28 PM
1

since when is twitter the litmus test??? I could find people celebrating Hitler with thousands of likes, doesn’t mean it’s in any way representative.
/r/MensRights01/10/24 06:06 PM
1

not in developed countries (-US)
/r/MensRights01/10/24 06:03 PM
1

yes - however in my country (UK) the remaining gender wage gap is pretty much only due to childcare etc
/r/MensRights01/10/24 06:00 PM
0

people still like Chris Brown. Celebs can get away with anything if they’re popular enough
/r/MensRights01/10/24 05:58 PM
1

What do you mean by selfless adaption?
/r/MensRights20/05/24 06:41 PM
1

Those in power always capitulated? exploited their ‘chivalrous instinct’ as men in power HAVE ALWAYS DONE? I don’t know what world you’re living in but it’s sure as fuck not this one.
/r/MensRights13/02/24 10:21 PM
-7

I think it’s fine. The only issue is that’s it’s only for women. Make it for both. Sure women are definitely the main target regardless, but might as well cover all bases
/r/MensRights12/02/24 02:09 PM
1

There prob is some biological basis for it, cos we are biological so inherently what we do is largely derived from it. Good podcast about this topic: https://youtu.be/YJF01_ztxwY?si=n-GuE-hSc1h5Pu1p
/r/MensRights12/02/24 02:08 PM
1

I’d personally say it’s cos society STILL pressures EVERYONE to conform, but the movements to pushback are mostly composed and originally oriented by and around women. So the grassroot pushback largely concerns women and other ‘obvious’ minorities, and so the corporate and political efforts mirror that.
/r/MensRights12/02/24 01:40 PM
-2

I think the reason it’s appealing is because it does have a legitimate academic base and historiography, and the layman understanding of it (while massively misunderstood and used) is vaguely in line with it. And so, cos it gives people an excuse to point a finger and be victims, AND it lines up vaguely with the legit academia ANYONE can use it despite how stupid and un-nuanced the points can be.
/r/MensRights11/02/24 06:13 PM
1

really, why are the thousands of people that support that here wrong, but YOU (also on reddit) are correct? I also exist? Like a week ago my friend said that people calling her/women ‘female’ was weird. So i’ve got my experience, all those thousands of other people (who LIKE YOU are on reddit).
/r/MensRights11/02/24 01:41 AM
1

No need to lie, it’s literally everywhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/s/IihYzHuYhe https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/s/iJwdlbuKvZ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/8zFvgQzPI0 Again, why don’t you also use ‘males’.
/r/MensRights10/02/24 09:50 PM
1

you’re talking about relationships, girls etc wouldn’t be used here. So women is fine. Yeah i doubt you know many women then, cos women have complained about it to me tons of times. It’s commonly accepted to be weird phraseology. Why don’t you use males then?
/r/MensRights10/02/24 09:17 PM
-1

cos it reeks of incel. They’ve taken over it’s usage. Why say ‘females’ instead of women, but you say men not ‘males’. It’s dehumanising.
/r/MensRights10/02/24 07:48 PM
0

females? Really not helping the MRA image
/r/MensRights10/02/24 07:43 PM
1

he “approached” them, and didn’t know them well enough to know if they have boyfriends or not. Fairly easy guess
/r/MensRights07/02/24 10:30 PM
3

i saw that post, and while i do think that in that particular case, the husband was overreacting a bit, it’s definelty the case that on those kind of posts, if the ‘victim’ of the story is a women everyone’s always siding with them, and absolving of them of often heinous shit. But if it’s a guy, it’s a bit closer to a normal reaction, but it’s still accusatory.
/r/MensRights07/02/24 08:36 PM
0

i’m not sure approaching women randomly is a good approach. They don’t know you, and having some guy come out of nowhere and ask them out doesnt give them a chance to really think or react, or come up with a measured response. If someone came up to me out of nowhere and asked me out, even if i normally would, i’d probably say no or i can’t etc just cos of the pressure etc Kinda sucks tho, cos there’s not that many other ways. Also, i feel like using the term toxic masculinity was a dumb decision…
/r/MensRights07/02/24 08:29 PM
2

yikes
/r/MensRights07/02/24 08:19 PM
3

probably depends on the specific country and region with their various laws. But regardless that is VERY CREEPY and perverted regardless of laws.
/r/MensRights14/01/24 02:29 AM
1

the twitter post, how it’s reasonable to be scared/worried about rejecting someone?
/r/MensRights13/01/24 03:07 PM
1

so you agree?
/r/MensRights13/01/24 03:43 AM
0

no they don’t. You’re conflating lots of different people/views. If you actually want to see, go to the askfeminist sub and ask
/r/MensRights22/12/23 05:31 PM
-1

because it’s about practicalities
/r/MensRights22/12/23 05:30 PM
-2

👏
/r/MensRights22/12/23 05:30 PM
0

cos i’ve been up all night writing an essay and this got me through it ngl
/r/MensRights22/12/23 08:29 AM
-2

surely if i did i would be frothing at mouth about this just like you
/r/MensRights22/12/23 08:23 AM
-1

Apply this elsewhere. Why do women cover their chests in public while men don’t have to? For very obvious reasons. Granted it’s prob a meh example but i’ve been up all night writing an essay so cut me some slack 😞
/r/MensRights22/12/23 08:22 AM
-2

yeah and i’m saying the reason they do that is became generative ai is used disproportionately to sexualise women than men. I have no horse in the race, i’m just stating the obvious.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 07:58 AM
-4

in real life (especially a business) you apply restrictions only in so far as you have to. Obviously because the VAST VAST majority of sexualised usage is of images of women, they’d restrict only that. It’s not some evil misandrist conspiracy, it’s cos dudes whack off to it.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 06:35 AM
-7

jesus christ who the fuck do you think people are going to be generating images of jack off to! If you look at the differences in generated images the women are always sexualised, literally use your head mate.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 06:27 AM
-28

are you purposefully not using your head?? I wonder why ai put specific limitations on generating certain types of images of women?? what a mystery
/r/MensRights22/12/23 06:15 AM
-26

yeah i don’t see myself as a person?? that makes sense…
/r/MensRights22/12/23 06:13 AM
-41

tbf it’s kinda obvious why this is… i wonder why ai doesn’t want to produce an image of women specifically on the loo…. edit: holy shit! the lack of critical thinking is insane
/r/MensRights22/12/23 03:26 AM
1

You do see how your argument is poor? If you can only name 3-4 instantly obvious examples (which doesn’t really work anyway cos they didn’t just get there cos of looks), out of the MILLIONS (sure i’ll reduce it if you want), that’s still nothing.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 03:03 AM
1

?…Taylor Swifts as in billionaires that are insanely famous. And yes there are billions (at least 1) of women that are as attractive, yet those people also struggle, and aren’t in those positions. Your argument kinda implodes, because there ARENT many others like swift etc.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 01:42 AM
2

wdym? there’s billions of women as attractive, that aren’t as successful. Plus virtually all massive artists are good looking men and women.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 01:15 AM
1

I’m fairly sure all past generations were fucked up in some ways -probably in largely the same- like lots of my friends grandparents have creeeeepy age gaps.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 12:36 AM
8

i assume its because it’s both a fairly rare occurrence, and also because news outlets largely won’t report it.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 12:34 AM
-2

The Halo effect is definitely a thing, but i wouldn’t say women therefor don’t put effort into their success. If it was as you described it, there would be millions of taylor swifts and no struggling women. It’s weird, this sub has a dichotic view of women when it suits them. Women are both lazy and elevated solely on looks, yet at the same time, schools etc are orientated to girls and that’s why they do better academically.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 12:28 AM
-2

how does this have downvotes? this sub…
/r/MensRights21/12/23 06:14 PM
-5

how? it’s obviously isn’t
/r/MensRights21/12/23 06:13 PM
-3

women aren’t some monolithic hivemind, christ 🤦‍♀️
/r/MensRights21/12/23 06:12 PM
-1

kinda ironic
/r/MensRights21/12/23 06:08 PM
1

? Everyone participates in upholding traditional beliefs. It’s not women exclusively. And no, men very obviously do care what men think of each other.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 05:56 PM
-1

…as in built-in implications?Can you really not see what i’m getting at 🤨, use your head mate.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:58 PM
-1

it definitionally does? I’ll make it simpler for you, you can’t just fixate on small points being like “Ah ha! got you!”, because it’s missing the actual broader context/issue (what holistic means). i.e - the bit about men having ruled the world for all of human history. Sure it’s not true today, but it entirely misses there implications. Funnily enough if you’ve been subordinate all that time, there are going to be implicit implications built in from those systems/values/beliefs.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 11:20 AM
-1

how does that track 🤦‍♀️
/r/MensRights21/12/23 05:25 AM
-4

i don’t think you know what holistic means.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 05:06 AM
-4

Because it’s entirely missing the point/significance of these stats.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 03:14 AM
3

Defence is understandable. But there’s no need for it to be gendered. A women wouldn’t be helping by getting pregnant mid conflict and raising that kid for 16ish years just for that kid to not fight. It’s modern warfare, gender is largely meaningless. And so are small firearms against any invasion that would get successful get into my country
/r/MensRights21/12/23 01:23 AM
3

since when are moral duties about providing canon fodder? The nation can go fuck itself, im not invading countries for unsubstantiated bullshit, nor would i pump out babies for the same purpose.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:59 AM
3

they aren’t moral duties either.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:43 AM
-11

Yikes this post is stupid. Pretty much encapsulates this subs lack of a holistic understanding.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:42 AM
-13

Yikes, the video really doesn’t help the MRA’s image.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:40 AM
2

sure, but it’s not a duty.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:35 AM
3

women don’t and shouldn’t have a duty to give birth to soldiers. Just like men shouldn’t be the soldiers sent to die for no real reason.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:29 AM
2

help lines in general seem pretty shit here. When you really need help sometimes you can’t wait for specific days, times or even go through the steps to pay for it.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:12 AM
-1

that’s not logic/intelligence. It never specified or even states intelligence etc. All it talks about is variation in the physical neurology, doesn’t talk about implications.
/r/MensRights19/12/23 08:25 PM
-1

that’s not the same at all.
/r/MensRights19/12/23 04:50 PM
-1

just read it, it doesn’t dispute what i said
/r/MensRights19/12/23 03:56 PM
1

there no difference in logic/intelligence, that has been disputed multiple times.
/r/MensRights19/12/23 01:51 PM
0

It’s an issue when anyone kills the themself?????? wtf
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:19 AM
0

probably the same as other movements at the time, like the civil rights movement and workers rights etc. Both had radical elements during the broader enfranchising movements.
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:15 AM
1

cos like feminism it has bad members that turn people away from even the idealised version of it
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:10 AM
1

ah yes matt walsh 😐
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:08 AM
1

wouldn’t the feminist city say exactly the same about the mra city?
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:07 AM
2

I thought you were talking about Jon jones the ufc fighter (bones), i was thinking christ what has he done this time
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:04 AM
0

kind of a weird hill to be on, guys have it both ways really, vast majority of villains and heroes. but women bar shows catered directly to female audiences are kinda just the love interest or the same limited roles
/r/MensRights10/12/23 03:03 AM
-4

from a purely evolutionary stand point mocking etc 100% is, but we shouldn’t base society around that. there are lots of features in our evolutionary journey that we actively minimise
/r/MensRights10/12/23 02:58 AM
-7

Sexual selection? That’s a weird path to go down. When you get into it, it gets so complex, and hard to ‘pin’ the propagation of genes on either sex, because of things like intersexual competition and imprinted genes. And yes men do put significant pressure on men to conform to hegemonic masculinity. That’s pretty explicit in academic journals etc. It isn’t a them or us, it’s all of us.
/r/MensRights02/12/23 03:04 AM
-1

Is this a troll? Seriously? Have you not interacted with a women in real life before? Maybe if you’re famous or super rich, but for the average guy? Nah.
/r/MensRights02/12/23 01:48 AM
-3

Ridiculous, how is 200k required every MONTH?? Tho one example doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of theories like patriarchy
/r/MensRights02/12/23 01:46 AM
-11

Societal norms and expectations are enforced by both really. In my experience it is largely men who talk about ‘manning up’ etc, but just like yours it’s anecdotal, so it doesn’t mean much. I’m just saying that it’s both, everyone is part of it.
/r/MensRights02/12/23 01:41 AM
1

Wow the irony.
/r/MensRights01/12/23 10:15 PM
1

what about coverture? very quick irrefutable example
/r/MensRights01/12/23 03:13 PM
1

But they were though? it’s not hard to find examples, ie Coverture
/r/MensRights01/12/23 03:10 AM
2

go on google and search ‘jstor divorce settlement gender’ or something along those lines. Jstor is a digital library of academic journals and sources so you’ll probably easily find what you’re looking for. something like this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/585506.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A6305013f8dc14e162c0ee66e82e70561&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
/r/MensRights01/12/23 03:03 AM
1

uhh yes they objectively were. Unless you’re saying they didn’t feel oppressed?
/r/MensRights01/12/23 02:40 AM
0

I’m not certain on how women historically perceived their treatment -i assume largely content due societal normalisation etc- but broadly women have historically been oppressed relative to men. My bad if you’re not disagreeing (i’m sleep deprived :)
/r/MensRights01/12/23 02:36 AM
1

I’ve responded to this already.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 07:28 PM
-1

Did so on another of your comments. Go ahead and read (you won’t, and will still spout sexist drivel).
/r/MensRights29/10/23 07:18 PM
2

Because its blatantly untrue. Literally search ‘gendered intelligence jstor’ or other academic archives, and the ENTIRE CONTEMPORARY CONSENSUS goes against it. Hunt, Earl B ‘Human Intelligence’ Cambridge University Press A critical review of sex differences in intelligence (Ca. Simpkins) There is no difference in intelligence.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 07:17 PM
1

There are physical, cultural, systematic and societal differences, but not intellectual. what? i hope you’re not agreeing with my purposefully incorrect example?
/r/MensRights29/10/23 06:59 PM
1

That’s blatantly not what they said.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 06:52 PM
0

‘different’ NOT INFERIOR! Women aren’t objectively intellectually inferior, that’s not a difference that’s blatantly untrue. How am i living in a fantasy land? All I’m saying is that women ARENT BRAINDEAD HYSTERICAL MORONS! And that there is no evidence, or academic agreement (actually academic consensus disagrees) that men are intellectually superior.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 06:51 PM
1

I’m depressed? You literally posted about how you have no friends and trust no one. That’s not proof, that’s just an uncritical selection of people. You have to look at these things critically and holistically. I.e you could also say those people are vastly all white and straight, which by your logic would mean non-white people and homosexuals are inheritantly less intelligent etc. Would you say Jews are inheritantly intellectually and emotionally superior to you? You have to look at cultural an…
/r/MensRights29/10/23 06:47 PM
-1

I’m a guy, does that ruin your sexist spiel that women are hysterical morons? Please, use your (clearly superior non emotional mind) and explain how men are inheritantly better, despite academic consensus.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 06:03 PM
-4

How does this have any support whatsoever? Men are smarter than women in ALL AREAS not involving emotion?? Men have an easier time understanding science/absract concepts!? What the fuck is this?? I thought this sub was improving, yet now it’s back to men are inheritantly smarter better and other more generic sexist dogma. What complete unsubstantiated false drivel. It’s insane how people can type shit like this out, and pretend it’s completely rational and NOT SEXIST somehow! Absolutely depressi…
/r/MensRights29/10/23 05:42 PM
1

woah woah woah, men are second class citizens? Internationally?? That really stretches and dilutes the definition. Sure, in the richest/most developed nations men are biased against in particular aspects (as are women), but that’s definitely untrue as a binary internationally. As to your actual question, if you’re in a developed nation, i doubt the difference would be worth a natalistic philosophy.
/r/MensRights29/10/23 01:36 AM
1

Third hand knowledge? We are talking about feminist epistemology in arguments, it has to be third person?? If you’re asking if i know feminist approaches, then yes, i’ve studied it in compulsory modules as part of my degree. Am i a feminist? Not how you’d described it, but if it means equality for both men and women, then yes.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 10:01 PM
1

What excuses? You can admit you don’t know something, you don’t need to deflect and try and counter with little substance. why is that relevant?
/r/MensRights28/06/23 09:54 PM
1

Academics can and do define such definitions, but the people OP is likely referencing aren’t going to be academics. And yes there are feminist sciences/approaches, don’t know why you are seemingly suggesting it is useless when it’s a utilised widely by the academic community. Though most people wouldn’t now that unless they have experienced it firsthand in higher education, as it’s generally not applied in lower denominations.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:56 PM
1

the people arguing these things regularly online are not academics (on either side), and likely don’t memorise complicated multifaceted definitions. And yes definitions can be concise, but when someone demands explanations and scrutinises every point, then no they’d need to go into longer and greater detail.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 11:47 AM
1

the dude on the right literally has 3 bellies. That isn’t just a ‘gut’
/r/MensRights28/06/23 04:52 AM
0

Holy fuck that’s a lot of misinformation. Misogyny wasn’t made a hate crime, it was dismissed. And no, it isn’t just looking, they made it explicitly clear in ads and campaigns that it is blatant prolonged staring. Literally just check out their site. Sarah Everard??? Why are you blatantly lying?? The ENTIRE SHITSTORM WAS BECAUSE HE WAS POLICE! That was literally the central point of the entire thing, that he was policemen. and again no, his wife’s contribution was mentioned fairly thoroughly. T…
/r/MensRights28/06/23 04:25 AM
1

How did it work? What evidence is there to show that it helped him? And yeah it is insecure, the guy not only underwent a risky operation, but also made it far riskier by increasing his height so much.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 04:18 AM
1

Yea they are. I am honestly confused how you can dismiss these, do you not have eyes? Or are you purposefully blocking them out?
/r/MensRights28/06/23 04:13 AM
1

i personally think the dissonance isn’t that significant (though growing), and is just smoke and mirrors from the often extreme forums for both sides which don’t represent their actual opinions. (this sub included btw). The tribalism of both sides is probably because they both blame the other gender, who then in turn feel angry as they feel personally attacked, and neither extremes put themselves in the position or shoes of the other to understand their actual stance,
/r/MensRights28/06/23 04:00 AM
1

what? 3rd guy from the left, 2 from the right both fat. Middle guy pretty skinny. Heights def vary, the guys in the centre are a good head different.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:49 AM
1

wtf? what a vile braindead comment. Depressing.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:45 AM
2

so the other guys provides a reputable link and is downvoted, but you provide nothing and are upvoted?? wtf
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:44 AM
1

Just because somethings against the law doesn’t mean they don’t/can’t happen. ie 1865 emancipation —> stil similar and blatant discrimination across all aspects of life etc.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:38 AM
1

tbf some definitions are long and complicated, and is easier to reference.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:28 AM
-1

i don’t think this is gendered, lots of people leave their SO if they have a serious illness.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:16 AM
1

get rid of the draft…
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:11 AM
0

deserved 😂
/r/MensRights28/06/23 03:04 AM
9

i think these places try to rip off those who they think are less knowledgable or less likely to object. and assume women are easier targets.
/r/MensRights28/06/23 02:56 AM
1

Your entire paragraph relies on essentialism/unverified assumptions.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 01:01 AM
2

Cos this is the biggest mensrights sub and i want to be alerted of big news/general position of MR. It’s double-edged.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:58 AM
1

what’s this got to do with this sub?
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:49 AM
0

Finally someone sane! This sub is terrible.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:41 AM
1

i think he’s fine and people are just hating. though there is lots of misinformation on his podcasts, so take what the guests and joe are saying critically.
/r/MensRights02/04/23 10:15 AM
1

rape isn’t legal, it would still be classified as sexual assault. It’s still chargeable.
/r/MensRights21/03/23 07:47 AM
0

Yeah it’s shit, and all over the place in subtle ways. This sub also needs to stop doing the same thing in reverse tho.
/r/MensRights21/03/23 07:38 AM
1

what are you on? Everything it mentioned can be accounted for.
/r/MensRights17/03/23 01:50 AM
2

what? so male feminist = closeted predator? 🤦‍♂️
/r/MensRights15/03/23 12:23 PM
2

but aren’t they notorious for being misogynistic hellscapes? Activision Blizzard not long ago with their sexual harassment and assault of female employees, with the CEO Bobby Kotick involved in the controversy too.
/r/MensRights15/03/23 12:21 PM
1

you kept on saying it can’t account for certain things, which it said multiple times it has.
/r/MensRights14/03/23 01:03 PM
1

🤦‍♀️
/r/MensRights13/03/23 10:45 PM
2

Lots, especially ignoring western countries. Freedom to drive, go in public unattended, access to education, property rights, access to anti conception etc edit: if you disagree, actually explain instead of just rage downvoting :)
/r/MensRights13/03/23 10:31 PM
1

I’m a bit confused, are you saying that women weren’t historically oppressed? If so that’s just objectively wrong. Also imo both men and women are equally repressed in differing ways, so i don’t really agree with your post overall. Just don’t let this kind of think affect your future/education.
/r/MensRights13/03/23 10:19 PM
1

first time i’ve seen someone lose an argument to an AI
/r/MensRights13/03/23 09:53 PM
1

could you elaborate on taxes and welfare?
/r/MensRights09/03/23 05:35 PM
-1

i honestly laughed because of how bad that was
/r/MensRights23/02/23 12:46 PM
-2

Kanye fan?
/r/MensRights23/02/23 12:35 PM
-2

historically??
/r/MensRights23/02/23 01:45 AM
-7

wtf, this is honestly the worst take i think i’ve ever seen! racism = ok? anti men = ok? anti semitism = ok?
/r/MensRights23/02/23 01:15 AM
-10

they get reduced sentencing if they are legally insane. It’s not the same.
/r/MensRights23/02/23 01:07 AM
-24

ngl i don’t feel sorry for kanye. Being mentally unwell doesn’t mean you can be antisemitic. also i don’t really get how will smiths situation relates? could u explain?
/r/MensRights22/02/23 11:46 PM
1

How about tabloids which aren’t banned from being cited on WIKIPEDIA because of its unreliability! fking WIKIPEDIA!
/r/MensRights22/02/23 11:41 PM
-8

u r actually this naive? of course media outlets misrepresent court proceedings! Don’t remember the Johnny Depp trail? tons of outlets lying and misrepresenting him. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11687757/amp/Women-like-Amber-Heard-never-silenced-legal-battle-Johnny-Depp.html I’m not going to read through the daily mail & spend hours researching the case ffs! It’s honestly depressing how stupid people (u) can be when it’s suits their narrative! Even WIKIPEDIA doesn’t consider it a r…
/r/MensRights22/02/23 11:37 PM
-10

The reason certain papers don’t ‘cover’ certain stories, is because of the nature of the papers and the stories. Lowly regarded tabloids like the daily mail can post sensationalised and often false stories because they don’t have a reputation for trustworthiness. and bank on the clicks. While sources that are considered more reputable don’t just write whatever they want without due diligence, as they’d have to if they wrote it immediately. Also this article was written hours ago, it’s unlikely a…
/r/MensRights22/02/23 09:31 PM
-17

https://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabloids/the-daily-mails-list-of-things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html Blatantly sensationalist and untrue https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/ and Unreliable Also how is the UK a gynocentric shithole? examples?
/r/MensRights22/02/23 09:10 PM
-2

historically?
/r/MensRights22/02/23 08:12 PM
-27

it’s cos this sub always cites the dailymail, one of the most notoriously unreliable and shit tabloid in the UK.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 08:05 PM
-6

people really need to stop citing the DailyMail it’s notoriously sensationalist, and outright lies all the time. i’m not saying this story is cos i don’t know and i’m not going to spend ages independently research this story, but it is likely blown out of proportion.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 08:02 PM
1

that will never happen, it’s just very unrealistic,
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:53 PM
1

isn’t it now officially considered a flawed democracy?
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:51 PM
3

ironic coming from a country that claims it’s all about freedom, rights etc
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:49 PM
0

those aren’t their definitions tho? in the correct context they make sense.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:40 PM
-1

source?
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:39 PM
1

Personally i haven’t seen this, it seems like both get positive and negative portrayals depending on the situation.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:35 PM
-10

historically negatives for both, just in different ways.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:31 PM
1

I don’t think he should be fired, but it’s a bad look. He retaliated disproportionately, didn’t he hit her 3 times? Both are in the wrong tho.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 07:23 PM
1

i’m… wha.. huh? Literally the majority of human history disagrees with you.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 07:37 PM
-1

i got downvoted to hell, for saying ‘not all women who are arrested claim abuse’ because the post was saying ALL woman make allegations when they’re arrested.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 07:30 PM
1

nope, because it affects threats etc against men and threats etc by women.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 11:35 PM
1

source?
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:54 AM
1

actually explain how your reply relates (and makes actual sense) to my comment.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:51 AM
-1

seriously… it’s not because he’s a guy, it because she’s on the floor UNCONSCIOUS and NAKED, and he was standing near nearby with his PANTS AT HIS ANKLES. ffs
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:49 AM
1

fair enough
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:43 AM
1

if you don’t get paid leave when can people have kids then? most people are barely above the poverty line (2 paycheques?), parents won’t be able to afford it.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:42 AM
-3

are you honestly like this? or are you just trolling? it’s pretty fucking obvious
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:39 AM
-1

yours are pretty glaring tho
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:37 AM
-1

example?
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:35 AM
1

I wonder why denmark would prioritise women from a country that just completely repressed womens rights???????
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:32 AM
1

true of all words now, every word has been watered down in severity. PTSD now just means anxious and worried about a specific thing.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:25 AM
1

Ah the Daily Mail peak journalism. Open supporters of the Nazis in WW2. Very reliable.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:24 AM
1

ah yes definitely, no woman ages 18-45 will be hired. 🙄
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:20 AM
1

so never have kids then? 🤨
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:18 AM
-1

not surprised, i saw your brain dead comments.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:18 AM
-4

my point is pretty obvious. He was standing next to her with his trousers and underwear at his ankles near a naked unconscious woman.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:12 AM
1

did you read the article? It sets regulations for companies to properly regulate things like ‘revenge porn’, ‘death threats’ and ‘threats of rape’. They say it’s not gendered, however it disproportionately affects misogynistic comments.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:10 AM
2

they said ‘It’s things like threats of rape, death threats, very much directed at women because they are women and girls. It’s designed to drive women off platforms.’ and things like ‘revenge porn’
/r/MensRights05/02/23 03:08 AM
-1

the police say she was lying unconscious on the floor…
/r/MensRights05/02/23 02:57 AM
1

The reason they’re saying this, is because of police abuse of women in the UK - (Sarah Everard anybody?? The officer who just got charged with 26 rapes??) - not because they’re misandrist. Why is everyone so salty and instantly jumping to she’s a misandrist tf?
/r/MensRights23/01/23 02:20 AM
1

I think being anonymous is a good thing (though imo both the accuser and the accused) but COMPLETELY disagree with getting the same punishment as the accused would get.
/r/MensRights17/01/23 09:08 PM
3

isn’t the standard the opposite? I remember people saying guys mature slower etc
/r/MensRights17/01/23 09:04 PM
0

the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, good on australia.
/r/MensRights16/01/23 10:06 PM
0

what? i would say it’s more so the opposite.
/r/MensRights16/01/23 09:55 PM
1

that’s definitely either not true or not enforced at all, my friends and I went holiday to India and dudes were staring constantly.
/r/MensRights03/12/22 05:29 PM
1

did you even read it? it’s about domestic abuse…
/r/MensRights03/12/22 05:21 PM
1

not really, people say women-hating cos that’s usually what it is
/r/MensRights03/12/22 01:38 PM
1

what has happened to this sub? anti-vaxxers, guys ‘accidentally’ going illegal stuff…
/r/MensRights03/12/22 01:35 PM
1

🤦‍♂️ Euro = € Pound = £
/r/MensRights03/12/22 01:13 PM
2

dude, i’m doing this at uni. incorrectly quoting wikipedia doesn’t make you right… Firstly Diocletians reign ended 170 years before the western roman empire collapsed. So not really relevant. I’m honestly so confused why you think women gaining rights made rome collapse? actually try to explain why it caused rome to fall, are you saying taxation + plus womens rights meant men left so no one to fight in armies?? if so that’s objectively wrong
/r/MensRights02/12/22 09:07 PM
2

Just NO, Rome didn’t collapse because women finally got rights, the actual reason was the Huns displacing lots of barbarian groups into the empire, their extraction of tributes (and Aetius’s over reliance on Hunnish armies), lack of help from the East, and an overarching degradation of fiscal resources via elite corruption, loss of territory, civil conflict etc
/r/MensRights02/12/22 08:45 PM
2

he said Rome collapsed because of women getting rights… that’s not logical or correct
/r/MensRights02/12/22 08:33 PM
2

haha what? Rome collapsed because of women gaining the right to vote? what?? Im studying the fall of Rome at uni and that has literally nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights02/12/22 08:15 PM
2

Euro?
/r/MensRights02/12/22 08:11 PM
1

From what i’ve seen, Reddit is mostly pro-men and anti-women, but completely anti fringe extremists from both sides.
/r/MensRights12/11/22 02:59 PM
1

Just saying that a lot of what’s you’ve said, isn’t actually what’s happening. All discussions i’ve been to about suicide highlight the higher rates in men and how to stop it, there’s no “women are actually the victim”.
/r/MensRights12/11/22 02:54 PM
1

why is this sub suddenly spewing complete shit about women being the real oppressors? You have to be living under the biggest rock in the world to actually believe that, especially internationally.
/r/MensRights12/11/22 02:48 PM
1

all you’ve said is i’m a dwarf?? what am i supposed to get from that? Why do you think i am? Or are you just pulling a random insult out of your ass? also pretty ironic, from guys who cry when girls say they have to be 6ft, using dwarf/short as an insult…
/r/MensRights11/11/22 11:41 PM
5

I don’t believe in the systematic ‘patriarchy’ as it’s often defined in Western democratic countries, but it definitely is real in others. My original comment never says men oppress women (i assume in the US), i ACTUALLY said, the idea that women are oppressing men is ludicrous. Which if it wasn’t already obvious -which it is - considering both, that’s what is says, and also I WROTE IT NOT YOU. No don’t sidestep, i’m actually curious how ANYONE can even remotely ignore the repression of womens r…
/r/MensRights11/11/22 11:35 PM
1

well, firstly my original comment wasn’t saying that. I was saying how the idea that women are the oppressor’s of men is delusional. Might as well answer your question anyway. Woman have fewer social, political and economic rights internationally, there is no debate; unable to vote, drive, own property, have to adhere to ludicrously regressive social traditions etc generally, women are politically, economically and socially suppressed to varying degrees across the world.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 11:22 PM
1

yep
/r/MensRights11/11/22 11:12 PM
1

i’m actually so confused… why am i dwarf? or 🤪 this?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 10:36 PM
1

😂 me? what? do you also not know what a dwarf is?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 10:32 PM
1

what? I don’t even know what you’re trying to say?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 10:22 PM
1

what? do you not know what masculinity and femininity even means?😂 I don’t mean biologically… I’m referring to the roles and behaviours in society that each gender is precluded to.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 10:20 PM
0

‘Masculinity’ and ‘Femininity’ are largely social constructs, please grow up. Stop making this an issue of alterity.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 10:03 PM
3

A feminist approach to IR? So reconstructing the ‘masculine state’ into another form?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 09:56 PM
0

Are you seriously saying that men are the oppressed and women the oppressors?? That is beyond delusional.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 11:00 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter